Re: TLS-CCA. Was: Browser UI & privacy - a discussion with Ben Laurie

Thanks Stephen. Lets hope one of these makes RFC soon

David

On 08/10/2012 12:38, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> FWIW, a few of us have proposed a similar approach covering HTTP
> authentication and JavaScript. [1] Others had also earlier gone
> down the TLS route. [2]
>
> I think there's definitely merit in investigating such approaches,
> mainly because they don't need passwords, but also partly due to
> the very thing to which you're objecting - any handling of user
> names or identifiers can be part of the application and not a part
> of some security infrastructure. (Maybe I've just developed too
> many of those over the years:-)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-httpbis-hoba
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balfanz-tls-obc
>
> On 10/08/2012 12:25 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> Hi Ron
>>
>> I have tested your system and demo and it works fine, as you say.
>>
>> I guess my question to you is, Why would a web site bother in trusting
>> the dswi.net server since it does not perform any authentication on the
>> user? The value add is surely quite small (zero trust, adding a third
>> party to the client server comms, but making the comms a bit easier).
>>
>> What is to stop the web site from running Java script in the browser in
>> a similar way to that used by dswi, that causes the browser to create a
>> key pair for the user (if it does not already exist), and then use this
>> each time to validate the user by using TLS client side authn? In this
>> way the web site does not need to trust dswi.net., there is no third
>> party involved, and the client cert proves its the same user each time.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> As long as Forge has entered the conversation I would also like to
>>> point to my own identity project:
>>>
>>> http://dswi.net/
>>>
>>> DSSID uses Forge for its crypto, but it uses a different protocol
>>> specifically designed to be simple for clients to integrate with.
>>> Note: this code is not ready for production use.  Feedback and
>>> comments are welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, looks really nice.
>>>
>>> If im not mistaken, it's quite similar to a web version of SSH?
>>>
>>> Does this sole harry's unlinkability problem too?
>>>
>>>
>>> rg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 14:10:58 UTC